The Attack on Scientific Truth in Public Schools

[Perhaps]

You're correct. I am naive to most things. And I'm glad that I now have that information. But as for what they want teachers to do, I gave my opinion, you gave yours. Perhaps yours is better than mine, in fact it probably is.

Does that make you happier?

[Jackalope]

Either of those examples work. I don't support creationism or agree with it, but like I said, I see no problem with it being taught and refuted in a science class.

Those that are pushing for creationism / I.D. to be taught in the classroom aren't going to stand for it being refuted there as well.

I have no issue with it being taught in science as an example of an example of junk science / pseudoscience, but that ain't happening in the U.S. any time soon.

---

You're correct. I am naive to most things. And I'm glad that I now have that information.

It's a common misconception, and I for one am encouraged in that you recognize that you were mistaken on that point and learned something new.

It's unfortunate that the word "theory" has been overloaded and means something completely different in common usage (something akin to mere supposition) than it does in science (an accurate, predictive explanation of a natural phenomenon), as well as philosophy / mathematics / etc.

A well-supported theory that withstands great scrutiny is the gold standard in science. It simply doesn't get any better than that, despite what the "it's just a theory" wankers would have you believe.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Don't forget everyone - they're not just after science.
They're after public education also.

Who needs cheap, affordable community colleges, after all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2Hd-uDnq...AAAAAAAMAA

[Minimalist]

You're correct. I am naive to most things. And I'm glad that I now have that information. But as for what they want teachers to do, I gave my opinion, you gave yours. Perhaps yours is better than mine, in fact it probably is.

Does that make you happier?

At my age I don't get happy.

A little more or less cranky usually covers it.

[popeyespappy]

---

The second proposal in the New Hampshire House, HB 1457, does not mention evolution specifically but would "require science teachers to instruct pupils that proper scientific inquire [sic] results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established, and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories or modes."

---

What's wrong with this? When I attended my middle school, and even high school (both of which were public) we conducted experiments then came to conclusions, we then compared those conclusions to accepted theories and saw differences and similarities. I'm all for teaching multiple perspectives and theories, if the most evidence falls behind evolution then there is nothing to worry about. I'd rather have my children grow in understanding by negating other theories with evidence as opposed to being taught a single definitive 'fact'.

There’s nothing wrong with the wording you quoted from HB 1457. As you already pointed out that is the way things are done now. It’s been that way for years. Having established that is what is happing now we have to ask what is the purpose of this bill? The answer to that question can be found in one of the quotes from the OP.

The theory of evolution has become a flashpoint for religious conservatives, many of whom argue that the idea of life evolving over billions of years clashes with Biblical beliefs. Republican State Rep. Gary Hopper, who with his Republican district mate John Burt introduced HB 1457, told the Concord Monitor that the theory of evolution teaches students that life is nothing but an accident.

It is an attempt to get the creationist POV presented as an alternative to evolution. That wouldn’t be a problem if they actually had a viable scientific theory, but they don’t. Intelligent design fails starting at the most basic level. We already have a legal decision determining that it isn’t science merely a poorly disguised attempt to teach creationism as science. In order to do that it is legally going to take more than a new law. It is going to take either an amendment to the US Constitution or SCOTUS is going to have to reverse their position on creationism.

There is a distinct difference between a law and a theory, one never changes, and the other does all the time. Nothing wrong with teaching children that knowledge is limited and that nothing is definitively true. In fact, if you take a step back, allowing creationism to be disregarded and negated by the youth as there is no evidence to support it would bring about a great deal of intellectual growth and maturity.

I hope you’re not suggesting that one day theories like evolution or the big bang could become scientific law. If you are I don’t think you understand what laws are because that’s not how things work. Neither of these theories will ever become law no matter how much evidence we have for them. I am also wondering if you understand that evolution is different than theories like the big bang in that evolution is currently both a theory and an observed fact. It is a verified process. We have watched it occur. The fact that the process of evolution has happened can never change regardless of any new discoveries.

I do kind of agree with you on one thing. The disinformation being fed to children by creationists fucktards needs to be addressed. That’s not to say intelligent design should be presented to as a scientific alternative to evolution because to date it does represent a viable scientific theory. Rather it needs to exposed as the crap it is. According to Project 2061, a long-term science education reform initiative of the American Association for the Advancement of Science we need to be addressing common misconceptions many students may have already formed when teaching science. Debunking intelligent design would be a good place to start.

"Students create strange conceptions about the world from their experiences," Anu Malipatil, a school administrator for a network of charger schools in New York and Connecticut, said in a press release. "It becomes more difficult to teach students without actually addressing the misconception first."

Linky

Project 2061

[Jackalope]

Republican State Rep. Gary Hopper, who with his Republican district mate John Burt introduced HB 1457, told the Concord Monitor that the theory of evolution teaches students that life is nothing but an accident.

This statement is such a steaming pile of crap it's unbelievable.

First of all, he's confusing evolution with the scientific explanation for the origin of life (abiogenesis). Typical.

Secondly, abiogenesis doesn't suggest that life was an "accident".

Lastly, so what if it was an accident? Wouldn't you rather people know the truth, even if it strips them of their security blanket deity? Rhetorical question. Of course he does.

Fail.

How do you know when a fundamentalist politician is saying something stupid? His lips are moving.

[fr0d0]

Creationism is very weak science and should be addressed in science as such. Likewise a metaphysical statement like "we know there is no purpose" should have no place in the science class room. Apart from the reason to point out the correct forum for addressing it.

[Ace Otana]

Creationism is very weak science and should be addressed in science as such.

Creationism isn't science. It's a joke. It is an insult to human intelligence.

[theotherone]

We don't get this kind of controversy over creationism being taught as science here in the UK. Only science is allowed in science classes. Religious ideas are taught in religious studies classes, there is no confusion between the two ideas. That is not to say that there are not those who would love to introduce creationism into science classes. But, so far, we have been pretty good at keeping science and religion apart. Whether that will remain the case in the future remains to be seen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/edu...hools.html

[leo-rcc]

As science, creationism is a hypothesis, severely lacking any kind of evidence. The worst thing is that creationist, specially of the Discovery Institute know this. The trick creationists pull time and time again is trying to poke holes in an established theory, thinking it somehow gives credit to creationism in some way.

Its all the DI does, they place all their effort in trying to discredit the ToE, and get politicians to allow "teaching the controversy" as if there actually is one. Creationists point to the scientists who doubt the validity of the theory, and trump up some bogus list of scientists (where on several occasions several scientists on those lists have pointed out that in fact they do accept the ToE as the most plausible theory, but were tricked in the way the poll question was put forward).

In response, the NCSE put forward a list of its own, with scientists signing that they agree with this statement:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

At the moment, this list has 1183 names on them. That might not seem much, but there is a catch. The only scientists allowed to sign their support on this statement, have to be named Steve. Even with this huge limitation of who is allowed to sign (it is estimated no more than 1% of American scientists are called Steve) this list still far outnumbers any list creationists have come up with.

The reason the NCSE did this was not to claim that the ToE is correct, but just to make it obvious that people should not be bought in with polls on validity of a scientific theory, because in the end it is nothing more than an argument from popularity, and not science.

I am all for teaching a controversy if there is indeed a controversy to speak of. As it stands however, there is no competing theory or even a hypothesis that has any merit. Teaching creationism or its lab coat disguise ID has no place in the science class until it does. And I am willing to bet that that will not be any time soon.